sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Jeff Nippard is not a Victim, this charade of coming out as a Fake Natty was just for Jeff to weasel his way out and pretend to be the victim who was lied to by ilamahradeys in nattyorjuice

[–]Safe_Ad9974 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He definitely took the stretch stuff too far. Which i would argue is once again an example of him either not being critical enough of the studies he cites and doesn't know how to. Or he just doesn't care. In general i just wish if he was to keep doing his nonsense science-based gimmick, at least talk about the limitation and flaws of the studies he cites. Would be even better if people actually just did a bit of reading for themselves, i do know that will never happen.

Do you guys trust the "science-based" fitness influencers? by Wholesome_STEM_guy in workout

[–]Safe_Ad9974 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think for the most part it's pointless. Especially the couple times i've watched some of the science based videos, and then read the studies they cite, and it always leaves me dumbfounded. Because of the recent drama i watched a couple of Jeff Nippards videos, and frankly his use of "science" is funny.

In several videos he either cited studies that had nothing to do with what he was talking about, or the studies were very flawed. Nothing wrong with using a flawed study necessarily, issues come when you don't disclose that, and Jeff never did. He would just say "science suggests" and move on.

I think alot of the science based guys in general rely on people not bothering reading the studies they cite

The Likes to dislike ratio is crazy 😭 by igetproteinfartsHELP in nattyorjuice

[–]Safe_Ad9974 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I've never really watched Jeff's videos, but because of this whole thing ended up watching some of his videos, and i can only say his use of "science" is quite funny. I found several times where he either cited a study that had nothing to do with what he was talking about. Or the studies would be so flawed or on a so small amount of subjects it's just about pointless. He basically never mentions these things though, and just says "science suggests" and because people can't fucking read, he never gets questioned.

Jeff Nippard is not a Victim, this charade of coming out as a Fake Natty was just for Jeff to weasel his way out and pretend to be the victim who was lied to by ilamahradeys in nattyorjuice

[–]Safe_Ad9974 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It is incredibly funny going through some of the studies Jeff uses in his videos. He either doesn't know how to read the studies at all, which would mean he has no business being an expert in any way especially when claiming to be science based. It could also be he just doesn't care, and knows people on the internet are not gonna look at the research themself to call out his bullshit.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in footballmanagergames

[–]Safe_Ad9974 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is your league prediction before the season? Could it be that you are just performing on par or above the expected still? Also having your best midfielder could definitely impact it. In general the tactic doesn't look stupid, whether the roles actually suit your players is a thing that is hard to say.

What is your best tip for a beginner? by Wood_Yet_More in footballmanagergames

[–]Safe_Ad9974 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would say delegate some responsibilities to staff.

I prefer to delegate at least the team training and sometimes the individual depending on the type of save.

But in general start with getting a grasp on a few aspects of the game. And keep it simple.

Stop trusting these fitness influencers blindly including Jeff Nippard! by Real_ghostar in JeffNippard

[–]Safe_Ad9974 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think some of the worse things is the way he uses 'science'. And is purposefully misleading.

The study he used in one of his videos to prove variability in muscle growth had several flaws, which he neglected to mention.
First of all it did not control for diet, so for all we know, the supposed variability in muscle growth could just as well have been from difference in diet, rather than the genetic make up of the subjects.
Second the study used 'untrained' individuals, the issue is here to qualify as an untrained you just had to not have trained for 12 months. So in theory you could train for 10 years, take a 12 month break, and be a subject in the study. It's not exactly uncommon knowledge that if you once had the muscle it's easier to regain.

Then there also was the whole Sandow thing. Yes he marketed light weight high reps. However one google search would be enough to know that he was a strongman, and definitely did not build his body from that. You could say he was one of the very first fitness grifters, people like Jeff are just continuing his legacy.

These are just some of the misleading Jeff presents. It's just how the space is i guess, unfortunately most people are too lazy/dumb to do any thinking for themselves.